DUST Search - [FEEDBACK]: Mu and afk farming

Nothing Certain wrote:

Ryme Intrinseca wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

couldn't agree more

So what to do about it?

Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games.

I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak.

So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played.

It seems unlikely that his AFKing would give him easier games. His Mu would be lower but the result would only be that he would be seeded lower on the team rankings, with all the players averaged it isn't going to affect him very much in team selection. Systemically this might be a problem but for any individual there is no real incentive to deliberately lower your Mu.

AFK is bad simply because it rewards doing nothing, which hurts everybody else.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1285	Posted - 2014.09.17 10:42:00 - [1] - Quote As Mu is calculated from both kdr AND W/L ratio, AFK farming affects players Mu. The reason, a side with an afking player is slightly more inclined to lose. Nevertheless, Even a 50-50 tally in games for a good player is a big drop in W/L. Therefore, AFK farming drops your Mu and let's good players fight easier matchmaking games. This is a feedback from a multi char afk farmer, who also says afk farming should be addressed and made more difficult. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 7256	Posted - 2014.09.17 10:43:00 - [2] - Quote couldn't agree more "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 779	Posted - 2014.09.17 12:18:00 - [3] - Quote Quick question: any word on roughly when the Mu system will be implemented? I'm really sick of getting dumped into one-sided games. Alt of Halla Murr.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 466	Posted - 2014.09.17 12:31:00 - [4] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: The reason, a side with an afking player is slightly more inclined to lose. Nah, with better matchmaking the afk players will be on opposite sides so instead of 16 vs 10 it'll be 13 vs 13 with one teams MCC party ending in flames and death! But seriously, just include time spent in the MCC into the calculations, then anyone afk farming can get stuck in matches with other afk farmers... So when they decide to actually start playing, they get to enjoy being the only person out in the game. Though this doesn't solve afk farming with an alt... Apart from dumping the alts away from everyone else.
Haerr Legio DXIV 1409	Posted - 2014.09.17 13:55:00 - [5] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Quick question: any word on roughly when the Mu system will be implemented? I'm really sick of getting dumped into one-sided games. Yesterday apparently ·
Jebus McKing Legio DXIV 648	Posted - 2014.09.17 15:00:00 - [6] - Quote Just bring back the Oceanian server and afk farming is solved... Paying customer. // @JebusMcKing
S-PANZA Expert Intervention Caldari State 69	Posted - 2014.09.17 17:11:00 - [7] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more As long as boosters timer keeps ticking while signed off there will be a legitimate reason to afk. If boosters were designed to run only when one is playing there would be less afking. You cant blame someone for afking so they wont lose the benefits of a booster that is running all the time , even when not signed in.
Jack 3enimble Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 387	Posted - 2014.09.17 17:35:00 - [8] - Quote S-PANZA wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more As long as boosters timer keeps ticking while signed off there will be a legitimate reason to afk. If boosters were designed to run only when one is playing there would be less afking. You cant blame someone for afking so they wont lose the benefits of a booster that is running all the time , even when not signed in. By that logic you don't need passive SP right. I mean you're not playing but the SP keeps adding up. So we can in fact blame AFKers for the assholes that they are
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1776	Posted - 2014.09.17 17:56:00 - [9] - Quote Jack 3enimble wrote: S-PANZA wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more As long as boosters timer keeps ticking while signed off there will be a legitimate reason to afk. If boosters were designed to run only when one is playing there would be less afking. You cant blame someone for afking so they wont lose the benefits of a booster that is running all the time , even when not signed in. By that logic you don't need passive SP right. I mean you're not playing but the SP keeps adding up. So we can in fact blame AFKers for the assholes that they are False. AFKers only motivation is to get isk or far more likely, active sp. We could stop AFKing by going to a full passive system. With no active sp to work for, people will have no reason to AFK. As long as that active sp is there, people will continue to AFK to get it, especially in light of panza said. Although I think this may make many people not login for months at a time, hurting CCP's numbers. PArt of the reason I suspect the active sp was put there in the first place. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 267	Posted - 2014.09.17 19:22:00 - [10] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: AFKers only motivation is to get isk or far more likely, active sp. We could stop AFKing by going to a full passive system. With no active sp to work for, people will have no reason to AFK. As long as that active sp is there, people will continue to AFK to get it, especially in light of panza said. Although I think this may make many people not login for months at a time, hurting CCP's numbers. PArt of the reason I suspect the active sp was put there in the first place. True, from my POV. Alena, you are on the right track in both points. AFK players want to get "unlocking-power" (whether in the form of ISK or SP) without having to GIVE much effort. They don't want to be an active part of the match at all---they only enter the game because it's required to accumulate the ISK/SP. If you turn the matches into a place where no SP is gained at all by entering, then AFK players will show up just for the ISK---and if for any reason active-ISK were removed, AFK players wouldn't show up at all. (They'd wait until enough ISK and SP were built up passively, and then visit Dust for an hour every two months to buy/unlock their goodies, and play with them a little. EVE-Online allows a LOT of passive-SP option, but what helps keep you returning to the game is that that passive SP must be actively assigned to a particular neural skill (like having to order your pizza a week in advance). I think we collectively settled into the fact a year ago, that, even with the innovatively unusual mechanics of Dust 154, we "righteous" gamers have to accept an x-percentage of AFK players (arguably "cheat" hustlers) in all out popular games. We can only look forward to agressive experimental ways to REDUCE their numbers and supress the damage their presence causes in realtime gameplay. We need to be careful how much we're willing to contort the core functions of the game just in the (fruitless?) hope of eliminating AFK entirely. As Alena Ventrallis concluded, active-SP is in there for reasons we're not always consciously seeing. Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.

KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1292	Posted - 2014.09.17 19:43:00 - [11] - Quote Hmm. There's a lot of false assumptions on how afk farmers get their benefits and what are their motivations. But this thread is about how afk farming affects the matchmaking. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 1875	Posted - 2014.09.17 20:12:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more So what to do about it? Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games. I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak. So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1295	Posted - 2014.09.17 20:34:00 - [13] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more So what to do about it? Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games. I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak. So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played. That sounds like a effective treatment to the symptom. The cure for the illness would be great. But that really could help the ANAM (...the All New Augmented Matchmaking!) People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
iKILLu osborne Z PLATOON CALDARI STATE PEACEMAKERS 311	Posted - 2014.09.18 04:31:00 - [14] - Quote why not set a wp requirement based off 1/2 of the average mu of their matchmaking tier to gain the active sp. i.e. scrub player has to perform at 1/2 scrub level to get active sp , good player has to perform at 1/2 their goodness level, while a great player has to perform at 1/2 of their holy tier. this would ensure that each player participated, even if they was having a bad day they would still get sp but would deter slacking/afking 1/2 of the 1/2 if sniping that match "yeah i fought the redline it took it only 13 seconds....." fought scotty too but something went wrong
Haerr Legio DXIV 1420	Posted - 2014.09.18 08:39:00 - [15] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more So what to do about it? Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games. I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak. So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played. I was about to suggest using truncated means to deal with hot (the stomping of noobs) and cold streaks (being spawn camped) unfairly influencing ones Mu but that wouldn't deal with extreme cases of AFKing... I wonder if "using the built in trash button" (i.e. suiciding) influences ones Mu or if suicides are subtracted from ones deaths, for the purpose of matchmaking that is. Oh look a bunny! -> =ƒÉç
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1136	Posted - 2014.09.18 09:51:00 - [16] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more So what to do about it? Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games. I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak. So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played. It seems unlikely that his AFKing would give him easier games. His Mu would be lower but the result would only be that he would be seeded lower on the team rankings, with all the players averaged it isn't going to affect him very much in team selection. Systemically this might be a problem but for any individual there is no real incentive to deliberately lower your Mu. AFK is bad simply because it rewards doing nothing, which hurts everybody else. Because, that's why.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 1892	Posted - 2014.09.18 11:23:00 - [17] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: couldn't agree more So what to do about it? Let's say me and Kero are equally good players. But I never AFK and he AFKs, say, half his games. His Mu will be radically lower than mine, so he'll get much easier games. I think you could deal with this by first ascertaining if the distribution of WP/S (99% correlated with mu, remember) is bimodal (in layman's terms, peaks at either extreme separated by a trough). If it is, then for mu purposes simply discount all the games from the low WP/S peak. So in the example I gave before, suppose I played a thousand games (average 1.5 WP/S), while Kero played a thousand games (also 1.5 WP/S on average) and AFKed a thousand games (near zero WP/S). Using the system I just described, his AFKing would get excluded as located at a low WP/S peak. So our mu would get calculated just on the basis of the thousand games each that we actually played. It seems unlikely that his AFKing would give him easier games. His Mu would be lower but the result would only be that he would be seeded lower on the team rankings, with all the players averaged it isn't going to affect him very much in team selection. Systemically this might be a problem but for any individual there is no real incentive to deliberately lower your Mu. AFK is bad simply because it rewards doing nothing, which hurts everybody else. My W/L is a touch over 2. If I AFKed half my games, you'd expect my win/loss to go down to about 1.4 (because my W/L when AFKing is a bit below 1). There would be a similar effect on Mu. Suppose the best five players in a game (other than me ) have Mus like this (obviously I don't know the scale, so I will just use W/L-type numbers; also I assume the other 13 players on each side are constant): 2, 1.7, 1.7, 1.4, 1.4 Without AFKing, my Mu is 2. So the teams will probably get arranged like this: Blue A - 2 (me), 1.7, 1.4 Red A - 2, 1.7, 1.4 With AFKing, the teams are probably like this: Blue B - 1.7, 1.7, 1.4 Red B - 2, 1.4 (me), 1.4 Of course, those teams, with actual, non-manipulated Mu, look like this: Blue C - 1.7, 1.7, 1.4 Red C - 2, 2 (me), 1.4 Red C is clearly a stronger team than Red A. Likewise, Blue C is clearly a weaker team than Blue A. I think it is clear therefore that lowering Mu via AFKing does give you easier games, because the matchmaker will then make your side stronger and the other side weaker, as in this example.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1300	Posted - 2014.09.18 12:12:00 - [18] - Quote Even though I am the one who brought up thye subject, I do now realise that Mu has some self correcting abilities. Meaning, if you constantly play those 'easier' games then your kdr is likely to get up. Some self correcting abilities. Not full. Two reasons: - That sort of 'secondary Mu effect of AFK farming' tends to lag behind - Only valid for slayers. Some logi-god with hardly any kills but sterling W/L ratio gets still full personal gain. (Squad gain - not that simple. If always playing with same guys, those friends are likely to get their kdr up) People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1136	Posted - 2014.09.18 13:06:00 - [19] - Quote Think of it like this, with 32 players divided into two teams, Team A gets the the 1 seed and the 32nd, Team B gets 2 and 31, and on down the line with pairs making 33. Any players chance of being on either team doesn't change much by their seeding and neither side has any real advantage. The team with the artificially low Mu player is stronger than expected because of this player, but he himself didn't receive any benefit. It does skew the teams though and so causes systemic problems. Because, that's why.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 310	Posted - 2014.09.18 14:55:00 - [20] - Quote There will allways be some rotten apples. Just keep it as it is now. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!



Pages: 1 :: [one page]

·

Oh look a bunny! -> =ƒÉç